Sunday, September 01, 2013

Calling the current version a "blank check," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) listed a few ways to narrow the [administration's] draft resolution, such as including a ban on use of ground troops and an expiration date in the legislative language.

"We want to make sure that any authorization is structured, is framed, so that it is very clear we are talking about a targeted, discreet response to the use of chemical weapons," added Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.).

Maybe -- maybe -- the president could win this vote if persuades Republicans that a more limited version of the resolution is absolutely unacceptable, and he simply won't allow himself to be constrained ... in a way that, in fact, is perfectly acceptable to him. Maybe if he makes Republicans think they can humiliate him by voting for a narrower resolution, he'll get a resolution he can actually live with. I don't think they'd fall for this, but apart from that, I can't imagine what they would vote for.

Or, of course, there's a much simpler way for the president to get this resolution passed: just a provision defunding Obamacare. Simple!

6 comments:

Gentlemen's and ladies.What makes you think that bombing Assad into the stone age is going to solve America's real problem.Terrorists with Chemical weapons.Assad would have zealots capable of releasing gas on USA interests or land.What guarantee is there thadt if the the other side(?)( a rag tag bunch of independent groups with their own axes to grind, some alQada affiliates.) from siezing the weapons to help with their own anti western Jihads. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/yes-the-syrian-rebels-do-have-access-to-chemical-weapons.html

it seems to me if the US gets involved it should be to destroy the chemical weapons only... if they can be found.Strategically the whole thing is too little too late and now heads they lose tails they can't win.

Also too - "...so that it is very clear we are talking about a targeted, discreet response to the use of chemical weapons."

"Targeted, and "discreet?" What?Like cutting loose what you hope will be a silent and not foul little fart in the corner of the dining room at a dinner party?

What the hell about missiles of any sort, is "discreet?"

And isn't any action now, or a week from now, a tad late?

If we, or, should I say, the President, and his team, wanted something done, they should have either called Congress together immediately, or used the AUMF that the Congress over a decade ago authorized, and done something.

Doing something now, or, rather, a week or two from now, "discreetly," sounds like using a rolled-up newspaper to tap that dog Assad, long after he's pooped on the rug in the living room.Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh...

Seriously where's the link between Obamacare and the Chemical weapons in Syria.Are you saying that the ONLY reason the GOP is vacillating is paying for the 'discrete' bombing(strewth! any more warning and the US may as well front page ads in the 'Damascus Times'... as for precision bombing?! well, the damage will have to be precise... Syria is only an inch square on my map).Or maybe the link is that the GOP think that the terrorists (either side) will only target what those who can't afford private health insurance? how are they gonna do that? More ass licking dog ideas from the netherworld of cartoon nonsense and GOP thinking? ;-)